The table below lists key characteristics of popular review types.
| Literature Review | Systematic Review | Scoping Review | Rapid Review | Meta-Analysis | |
| Description | Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings. | Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review | Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) | Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research | Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results |
| Search | May or may not include comprehensive searching | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress | Completeness of searching determined by time constraints | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness |
| Appraisal | May or may not include quality assessment | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion | No formal quality assessment | Time-limited formal quality assessment | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/ exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses |
| Synthesis | Typically narrative | Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment | Typically tabular with some narrative commentary | Typically narrative and tabular | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary |
| Analysis | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; uncertainty around findings, recommendations for future research | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review | Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature | Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity |
|
Time to Complete |
2+ months | 10-12+ months | 2+ months | 2-6+ months | 10-12+ months |
| Search Strategy | Search strategy not typically reported. Not comprehensive, which could introduce bias. | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive search. Librarian will develop search strategy and can provide consultation on the methods section of manuscript. | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. Librarian collaboration recommended. | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. Librarian collaboration recommended. | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive search. Librarian will develop search strategy and can provide consultation on the methods section of manuscript. |
| Strengths | Allows for consolidation, building on previous work, summation, and for identifying omissions in the literature. | Seeks to draw together all known knowledge on a topic. | Informs decision-makers if a full systematic review is needed. | "Quick but not dirty," this review makes concessions for the sake of speed. Strategies such as forming a highly-focused question, using broad search terms, reviewing reviews, and performing a simple appraisal may be used. | Allows individual studies to be assimilated into a composite evidence base. |
| Weaknesses | Not comprehensive; open to bias | Requires a team of at least three (one for tiebreaker). Prior experience recommended. Only as good as the studies included. | Too limited and biased to stand on its own; acts more as precursor to systematic review. | Runs the risk of bias when steps are fast-tracked. | Only as good as its included studies allow. Easy to misuse and compare apples to oranges. |
Table adapted from:
Grant MJ, and Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, and Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(3):202-222. doi:10.1111/hir.12276
Systematic Reviews: Types of Reviews. LibGuides at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (2021). Retrieved September 8, 2021, from https://guides.lib.unc.edu/systematic-reviews/review-types